No Certitude, No Reverence, No People

A recent Pew Survey on Religion indicates fully twenty-nine percent of Americans express adherence to religion (atheists, agnostics, “nothing at all”). The Survey indicated that the percentage of the “nones,” as this group is referred to by researchers, had “plateaued” in recent years, but twenty-nine percent is still a significant number as many of the people we encounter during the course at the supermarket or other public places give no thought to anything other than the here and now.

Mention a feast day?

Blank stares.

No response.

So, I tell them look up the saint of the day or, seeing that a person is named Claire or Nicholas, or Christopher, or Anthony, I tell them that they should do a search of their patron saint as a way of helping to introduce the person to the ways in which the saints served God, including by laying down their lives to the Holy Faith and of trying to open up to the person the vistas of eternity. These poor people who know noting about Who made them, has redeemed them, and Who sustains their very lives by means of Actual Grace and Who desires them to convert to the Holy Faith and thus know His own inner life in their immortal souls by means of Sanctifying Grace. We have an obligation to say a few words to them, if possible, to inspire them to look beyond self and this finite world filled with false pleasures and attractions. This is in addition, of course, to giving such people a blessed Green Scapular, which is Our Lady’s subpoena, if you will, to lead them into the Holy Faith at a time they might least expect such a conversion to happen.

Gone are the days, however, when even Catholics could be expected to know about even the existence of the liturgical year, no less of various feast days. We find ourselves talking Swahili to baptized Catholics, including perhaps members of our own family. Although it has taken over six decades to do its diabolical work, the conciliar revolution against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals has not only robbed those Catholics within the conciliar structures of the ability to see the world through the eyes of the true Faith but also of their knowledge that the Catholic Faith is certain.

The doctrinal and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism have pretty much, although not entirely, eviscerated the sensus Catholics in the lives of the lion's share of Catholics worldwide who are as of yet attached to the structures of its counterfeit church. As all but a tiny fraction of Catholics, perhaps less than one tenth of one percent of all Catholics worldwide, are attached to the structures of that counterfeit church, this means that hundreds of millions of baptized Catholics around the world have not one blessed clue as to what it means to practice the Catholic Faith with any degree of fervor and devotion as one attempts to live out the liturgical year each day of his life in cooperation with the graces won for us by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hand of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

The sensus Catholics of most Catholics in the world has been eroded, if not entirely eclipsed, as a result of a steady, ceaseless and at times mind-boggling array of changes and novelties and innovations and "reinterpretations" to which Catholics prior to that time had never been subjected. Indeed, the doctrinal and liturgical revolutionaries worked very hard to convince Catholics that they could NOT trust their own Catholic senses, that they, the experts, "knew best." This strategy worked with even a lot of older priests in the 1960s and 1970s as the revolutionaries appealed to their sacerdotal sense of obedience to convince them that their sensus Catholicus about the Faith and the Mass could no longer be trusted, that they, the priests, had to rely upon the "experts" who wanted to do want the "pope" wanted done at the diocesan and parish levels.

Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, wrote in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy of how the revolutionaries took advance of the sensus Catholicus of both believing priests and lay Catholics at the beginning of the liturgical revolution:

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey.

The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring about did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continue to fall away from the Church in droves.

Although our young people have been literally seduced in to supporting the new forms of liturgical worship, they have, in fact, become more and more alienated from the faith. They are drawn to religious sects--Christian and non-Christian ones--because fewer and fewer priests teach them the riches of our Catholic faith and the tenets of Christian morality. As for older people, the radical changes made ot the traditional liturgy have taken from them the sense of security in their religious home.

Today, many among us wonder: Is this Spring people had hoped would emerge from the Second Vatican Council? Instead of a genuine renewal in our Church, we have seen only novelties. Instead of our religious life entering a period of new invigoration, as happened in the past, what we see now is a form of Christianity that has turned towards the world.

We are now involved in a liturgy in which God is no longer the center of our attention. Today, the eyes of our faithful are no longer focused on God's Son having become Man hanging on the cross, or on the pictures of His saints, but on the human community assembled for a commemorative meal. The assembly of people is sitting there, face to face with the "presider," expecting from him, in accordance with the "modern" spirit of the Church, not so much a transfer of God's grace, but primarily some good ideas and advice on how to deal with daily life and its challenges.

There are few people who speak of the Holy Mass as the Sacrifice of the New Covenant which we offer to God the Father through Jesus Christ, or of the sacramental union with Christ that we experience when we receive Holy Communion. Today, we are dealing with the "Eucharistic feat," and with the "holy bread," to be shared as a sign among as a sign of our brotherhood with Jesus.

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, pp. 100-102.)

Having accepted, albeit in good faith, the poison represented by the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination, most of these older priests became susceptible to accepting each of the little doctrinal "drops of poison" that the conciliar Vatican and its affiliated chancery offices introduced from time to time (false ecumenism, inter-religious prayer services, religious liberty, the changeable nature of dogmatic truth) in implementing the wonderful "insights" represented by the "Second" Vatican Council and various postconciliar documents and "papal' pronouncements. A steady dose of these poisons, made possible first and foremost by the acceptance of the Novus Ordo, would lead some of these priests and many of members of the laity into having their sensus Catholicus eviscerated and replaced with a synthetic creation that inclines them, whether or not they realize it, to be overtly hostile to any mention of the actual truths of the Catholic Faith as taught from time immemorial prior to 1958 and thereafter.

Indeed, some of the most singularly hostile people to any mention of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, no less criticisms of conciliarism's multiple defections from the Faith, are older Catholics, both priests and members of the laity, who have permitted themselves to believe that the Catholic "past" is "outdated" and that some "reform" was necessary. Indeed, I remember a "Father X" article in The Latin Mass magazine in the 1990s entitled, "They Have Burned What They Once Adored," referring to older priests who were ordained to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition only to turn on the Mass of the ages with a demonic fury worthy of the old Protestant revolutionaries of the Sixteenth Century. "Father X," now a conciliar pastor, made excellent points in his article.

Then again, this is what all revolutionaries attempt to do as they use skillful propaganda to wipe out a true memory of the past in order to "create" a memory of the past that is false, predisposing the "people" for an acceptance of the revolutionary agenda for a "better" future.

Although it has taken over six decades to do its diabolical work, the conciliar revolution against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals has not only robbed those Catholics within the conciliar structures of the ability to see the world through the eyes of the true Faith but also of their knowledge that the Catholic Faith is certain. Indeed, conciliarism is founded in a war against the every nature of God Himself by attacking the certitude of Catholic doctrine, thus creating a sense of such uncertainty, instability, and restiveness within the souls of many Catholics that has made them susceptible to the entreaties of Protestant “evangelicals” or “fundamentalists,” especially in Latin America, or into becoming rank unbelievers living accord to worldly and carnal desires. Baptized Catholics who are deprived of true Catholic doctrine and starved of the supernatural nourishment offered them in the true Sacraments become ready prey for the devil and his minions, who do indeed prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Apart from the phenomenon of the “nones,” the aforementioned Pew Survey on Religion also indicated that, to the surprise of no one who has been following the course of the conciliar revolution in the past sixty-six years, five months, the numbers of practicing Catholics has declined dramatically since 2007:

The largest subgroups of Christians in the United States are Protestants – now 40% of U.S. adults – and Catholics, now 19%. People who identify with all other Christian groups (including the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses and many others) total about 3% of U.S. adults. . . .

Both Protestant and Catholic numbers are down significantly since 2007, though the Protestant share of the population has remained fairly level since 2019 and the Catholic share has been stable since 2014, with only small fluctuations in our annual surveys.

Expressed as a ratio, these figures mean that there are six former Christians for every convert to Christianity in the United States. The balance is especially lopsided for Catholicism (which loses 8.4 people through religious switching for every convert to the religion). But Protestants also lose more people than they gain through switching, by a ratio of 1.8 to one. (US Christian Decline May Be Stabilizing: 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study | Pew Research Center.)

The situation, according to Methodist convert to Catholicism Eric Sammons, the editor of Crisis magazine, the situation is even worse when one considers the number of practicing Catholics who attend what they believe is Holy Mass within the structures of what they think is the Catholic Church but is in fact nothing other than her counterfeit ape:

Fortunately, the survey also asks about attendance at religious services, but these numbers are also discouraging. Only 29% of self-identifying Catholics attend Mass weekly. So only 29% of the 19% of Americans who identify as Catholic actually fulfill the Sunday obligation.

At the risk of earning broken record status, I think it’s even worse. The Pew survey doesn’t ask about going to Confession, but based on other surveys I’ve seen over the years, the total number of self-identifying Catholics who go to Confession at least once a year is around 10%. Let’s be optimistic and say it’s actually around 20% and that all those Catholics also go to Mass weekly.

Based on the very-minimally-defined idea of a “practicing Catholic” as someone who attends Mass weekly and Confession yearly, probably at most 20% of the 19% of self-identified Catholics are practicing Catholics.

• 400 million Americans
• 19% self-identify as Catholic: 64.6 million Catholics
• 20% of those Catholics: 12.92 million practicing Catholics, or 3.8% of all Americans

Compare this number of practicing Catholics to the 98.6 million religious “nones”—there are almost eight times more religious nones in America than practicing Catholics. And then remember more than 50 million of the people who identify as Catholics don’t even do the minimum to be considered practicing their faith in any real sense. 

Compare this number of practicing Catholics to the 98.6 million religious “nones”—there are almost eight times more religious nones in America than practicing Catholics. And then remember more than 50 million of the people who identify as Catholics don’t even do the minimum to be considered practicing their faith in any real sense. (Catholics Are Rapidly Losing Ground.)

Although Mr. Sammons identifies a number of factors, some of which are entirely correct, he fails, however, to understand that, in addition to cultural causes, the pull of the world, and the lame excuses Catholics (scandals, clergy abuse cover-ups, etc.) have always to succumbed to the adversary’s desire to pull them out of any of semblance of the Holy Faith, the primary proximate cause of the loss of Catholics to the Holy Faith is the rise of that counterfeit church and the false doctrines that it has been promulgating since the “Second” Vatican Council.

Herewith is a very non-exclusive summary of how the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its “popes” have taken a veritable wrecking ball to the Holy Faith:

1. The claim that dogmatic truth can be understood in different ways at different times as the vagaries of historical circumstances and the limits of human speech to express the meaning of dogma accurately require constant re-evaluation. This is nothing other than Modernism’s dogmatic evolutionism, the concept of which has been condemned by Pope Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864; Vatican Council, Session III: Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870; Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907; Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8. 1907; Praestentia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
2. The belief that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church but is not limited to her. Contrary to the very Divine Constitution of the Church and condemned through her history, most recently by: the Vatican Council, Session IV, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church; Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896; Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
3. The belief that Protestant and other non-Catholic Christian denominations have elements and truth and sanctification. Condemned as in number 2.
4. The belief that it is necessary to conduct inter-religious “dialogue” to effect that which is said to be “lacking,” namely, Christian unity. Heretical, condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, Satis Cogntium, and by Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1929.
5. The belief that “inter-religious prayer services” with non-Catholics is pleasing to God. Contrary to Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.
6. The belief the Judaism is a valid religion that enjoys the favor of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, and that the Mosaic Covenant has never been abolished. Heretical, contrary to the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the consistent teaching of the Church Fathers and condemned by Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence in Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442, and most recently by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
7. The teaching that false religions have a “right from God” to propagate themselves and to be given ample public space to spread their errors in the name of “religious liberty.” Heretical. Contrary to the First Commandment and condemned consistently by our true popes since its spread in the late-Eighteenth Century. Among these condemnations have been: Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right", Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas; April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS, Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832; Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, and Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864; Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888; Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953, who reiterated that error has no rights but that toleration, which had been discussed by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum, is necessary in today’s world to advance the common good.
8. The belief in separation of church and state. Heretical. Condemned by Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832; Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, and Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864; Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902; Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and Iamdudum, May 24, 1911; Pope Benedict XVI, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum. November 1, 1914; and Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio. December 23, 1922, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, and Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)
9. Episcopal collegiality. Contrary to the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff was reiterated dogmatically in Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, July 18, 1870.
10. The inversion of the ends of marriage and “natural family planning.” Contrary to Divine Revelation and the Natural Law and specifically condemned by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944, and in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Mind you, this is just a partial listing of all that believing Catholics have had to accept as the conciliar revolutionaries keep pushing the envelope, expanding the boundaries and moving the goalposts to get to the point that rank pantheism will be accepted as Catholicism. Most Catholics in the conciliar structures, however, have swallowed all the doctrinal rubbish, all the burning of incense to false idols in temples of false worship, all the elegies of praise in behalf of religious liberty and separation of Church and state, all the liturgical outrages and abominations, all the “papal” warnings about “global warming” and the need to protect the environment, all the “papal” sellouts to Red China, all the “papal” endorsements of “open borders” and socialism—in other words, everything—churned out by their counterfeit church of conciliarism—hook, line and sinker. As I wrote in 2009, they like it!.

Although the process of European degeneration began during certain phases of the Renaissance with the recrudescence of sophism and even calls by some for the “separation of Church and State” in the city-state of Florence, Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church separated  millions of baptized and confirmed Catholics from the maternal direction offered by Holy Mother Church and from the life-giving wellspring of her Sacraments.

The Protestant Revolution let loose such furious debauchery that even Erasmus, who had been a supporter of Martin Luther’s “restoration,” recoiled in horror, something that Father Edward Cahill pointed out in The Framework of a Christian State:

The assumption that Protestantism brought a higher and purer moral life to the nations that came under its influence does not need elaborate refutation. It is a fact of uncontroverted history that "public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention robberies of church goods, brutal treatment meted out to the clergy, secular and regular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so many wars of religion," we have the express testimony of [Martin] Luther himself and several other leaders of the revolt, such as [Martin] Bucer and [Philip] Melancthon, as to the evil effects of their teaching; and this testimony is confirmed by contemporaries. Luther's own avowals on this matter are numberless. Thus he writes:"There is not one of our Evangelicals, who is not seven times worse than before he belonged to us, stealing the goods of others, lying, deceiving, eating, getting drunk, and indulging in every vice, as if he had not received the Holy Word. If we have been delivered from one spirit of evil, seven others worse than the first have come to take its place."

And again:

“Men who live under the Gospel are more uncharitable, more irascible, more greedy, more avaricious than they were before as Papists."

Even Erasmus, who had at first favoured Luther's movement, was soon disillusioned. Thus he writes:

"The New Gospel has at least the advantage of showing us a new race of men, haughty, impudent, cunning, blasphemous . . . quarrellers, seditious, furious, to whom I have, to say truth, so great an antipathy that if I knew a place in the world free of them, I would not hesitate to take refuge therein." 

That these evil effects of Protestantism were not merely temporary—the accidental the accidental results of the excitement and confusion which are peculiar to a stage of transition (although they were no doubt intensified thereby)—is shown from present-day [1932] statistics. The condition of domestic morality is usually best indicated by the statistics of divorce, and of illegitimate births, and by the proportion of legitimate children to the number of marriages; while statistics of general criminality, where they can be had, would convey a fair idea of the individual and public morality in any given place. According to these tests Protestant countries are at the present day much inferior to Catholic countries in domestic and public morality. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, first published in 1932, republished by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 102-104.)

Father Felix Sarda y Salvany’s What is Liberalism? Explained how Protestantism begot Liberalism, which is but a species of an entire range of Judeo-Masonic naturalist belief systems:

Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgment. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual’s reason or caprice upon the subject-matter of Revelation. The individual or the sect interprets as it pleases–rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clearer that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him, cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe of its own making.

As a result, we find amongst the people of this country [Spain] (excepting well formed Catholics, of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster and that religious beliefs or unbeliefs have come to be mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one being free to make or unmake his own creed–or to accept no creed.

Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press. It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant, the more so because it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty. Nor does it appeal to us only on the ground of religious toleration.

The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the Source and the End of all good; and Infidelity, whether virtual, as in Protestantism, or explicit, as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God and seeks to build human society on the foundations of man’s absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.

2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.

3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.

Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all others. To express them all in one term, they are, in the order of ideas, Rationalism, or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social, and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc; in one word, which synthesizes all, we have Secularization, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life, whatever they be. This is veritable social atheism.

Such is the source of liberalism in the order of ideas; such in consequences of our Protestant and infidel surroundings, is the intellectual atmosphere which we are perpetually breathing into our souls. Nor do these principles remain simply in the speculative order, poised forever in the region of thought. Men are not mere contemplatives. Doctrines and beliefs inevitably precipitate themselves into action. The speculation of today becomes the deed of tomorrow, for men, by force of the law of their nature, are ever acting out what they think. Rationalism, therefore, takes concrete shape in the order of facts. It finds palpable expression and action in the press, in legislation, and in social life. The secular press reeks with it, proclaiming with almost unanimous vociferation, absolute division between public life and religion. It has become the shibboleth of journalism, and the editor who will not recognize it in his daily screed soon feels the dagger of popular disapproval. In secularized marriage and in our divorce laws, it cleaves the very roots of domestic society; in secularized education, the cardinal principle of our public school system, it propagates itself in the hearts of the future citizens and the future parents; in compulsory school laws, it forces in the entering wedge of socialism; in the speech and intercourse of social life, it is constantly asserting itself with growing reiteration; in secret societies, organized in a spirit destructive of religion and often for the express purpose of exterminating Catholicity, it menaces our institutions and places the country in the hands of conspirators, whose methods and designs, beyond the reach of the public eye, constitute a tyranny of darkness.

In a thousand ways does the principle of Rationalism find its action and expression in social and civil life, and however diversified be its manifestation, there is in it always a unity and a system of opposition to Catholicity. Whether concerted or not, it ever acts in the same direction, and whatever special school within the genus of Liberalism professes it or puts it into action–be it in society, in domestic life, or in politics–the same essential characteristics will be found in all its protean shapes–opposition to the Church–and it will ever be found stigmatizing the most ardent defenders of the Faith as reactionaries, clericals, Ultramntanes [See p. 92, par. 1], etc.

Wherever found, whatever its uniform, Liberalism in its practical action is ever a systematic warfare against the Church. Whether it intrigue, whether it legislate, whether it orate or assassinate, whether it call itself Liberty or Government or the State of Humanity or Reason, or whatnot, its fundamental characteristic is an uncompromising opposition to the Church.

Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ. (Father Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism Is A Sin, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 8-13; translated and adapted by Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D., and published originally by B. Herder Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri, in 1899 under the title of What Is Liberalism?)

This describes both the letter and the "spirit" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of Jacobin/Bolshevik comrades. The sole determinant for morality and pastoral "action" is a false sense of "mercy" based upon doing nothing to disturb the "delicate consciences" of those steeped in sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, something that makes perfect logic when one considers the fact that the conciliar revolutionaries violate the first three Commandments with impunity on a regular basis.

The conciliar revolution against the Catholic Faith has had similar effects by alienating millions upon millions of Catholics from the any semblance of Catholicism and into the waiting arms of Protestant “evangelicals” or “fundamentalists,” especially in Latin America, or into becoming rank unbelievers living accord to worldly and carnal desires. Baptized Catholics who are deprived of true Catholic doctrine and starved of the supernatural nourishment offered them in the true Sacraments become ready prey for the devil and his minions, who do indeed prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

One formerly Catholic country after another in Europe has long ago endorsed almost a panoply of moral evils while embracing materialistic socialism, if not outright Marxism-Leninism, as the conciliar “popes” have celebrated that mythic “civilization of love” and, especially under Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have seen their pro-abort, pro-sodomite, anti-family, anti-freedom globalist leaders indemnified by the conciliar Vatican and its nuncios at almost every turn.

Flushed down the Orwellian memory hole, therefore, are the prophetic words of Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, and of Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The empirical statistics do not lie. The counterfeit church of conciliarism, replete with its false doctrines, sacramentally barren liturgical rites, false concepts of mercy and “pastoral praxis,” false Scriptural exegeses, and the deconstruction of everything authentically Catholic has driven many Catholics out of the Faith to simply practice nothing or to join one or another of the Protestant sects, dried up vocations to the priesthood and the consecrated religious life, and indemnified hardened sinners, especially those steeped in lives of rank perversity and deviancy, as deserving of special pastoral attention and solicitude.

This sterility is plain for all who have the intellectual honesty and the graces necessary to see them, but relatively few are able or willing to admit the proximate root cause, namely, the false conciliar religion.

Consider, for example, how a writer saw the decline in consecrated religious women in 2003 but was nonetheless mystified as to how this decline occurred:

Here is an event that sociologists and historians still puzzle over: In 1968 there were 19,974 sisters--convents had filled to an all-time high. The following year the flow of young women into the sisterhood nearly stopped. It was as if someone had turned off a tap. The causes are many and complex. Underlying all of them was the fact that the nation was changing. (John J. Fialka, Sisters: Catholic Nuns and The Making of America, St. Martin's Press, 2003, p. 3)

What was the year after 1968?

Well, unless I am completely wrong, I believe that it was the year of my high school graduation, 1969. Yes, much happened that year.

Look, with all due respect Mr. Fialta, admitting full well that there were many social factors at work in the 1960s, the simple reason is this: the "Second" Vatican Council made an "accommodation" to the "new principles inaugurated" in 1789 that had helped so much to deform the world, shutting off the wellsprings of grace with the promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on April 3, 1969, and then with its first staging on the First Sunday of Advent that year, November 30, 1969.

As a Dominican priest told a man then in college in Ohio, distraught over the fact that he was forced to abandon the traditional Dominican Rite, "This is the first time that I have never consecrated the Sacred Species. I have not offered a Mass." What a poignant observation. And it cuts right to the point, does it not? There is no reason to be mystified, no need to consult sociologists or other gurus of naturalism to understand that false doctrines and abominable liturgical rites are tools of the devil to demoralize Catholics and to draw then more and more into the world.

After all, as Mr. Fialta did point out his book without even realizing the underlying reason for the events he described, there were systematic efforts made to undermine consecrated religious life from the midde-1960s and thereafter. This has been very well documented. Dr. William Coulson, a disciple of the psychology of Carl Rogers, whose "create your own reality" psychology was instrument in shaping the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, explained how he helped to destroy the Immaculate Heart of Mary Sisters:

TLM: Now what year are we talking about, roughly?

COULSON: '66 and '67. There's a tragic book called Lesbian Nuns, Breaking Silence, which documents part of our effect on the IHMs and other orders that engaged in similar experiments in what we called "sensitivity" or "encounter." In a chapter of Lesbian Nun, one former Immaculate Heart nun describes the summer of 1966, when we did the pilot study in her order-

TLM: "We" being you and Rogers?

COULSON: Rogers and I and eventually 58 others: we had 60 facilitators. We inundated that system with humanistic psychology. We called it Therapy for Normals, TFN. The IHMs had some 60 schools when we started; at the end, they had one. There were some 615 nuns when we began. Within a year after our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves.

TLM: Who's that on the cover of that book [Lesbian Nuns, Breaking Silence]?

COULSON: This is Sister Mary Benjamin, IHM. Sister Mary Benjamin got involved with us in the summer of '66, and became the victim of a lesbian seduction. An older nun in the group, "freeing herself to be more expressive of who she really was internally," decided that she wanted to make love with Sister Mary Benjamin. Well, Sister Mary Benjamin engaged in this; and then she was stricken with guilt, and wondered, to quote from her book, "Was I doing something wrong, was I doing something terrible? I talked to a priest--"

Unfortunately, we had talked to him first. "I talked to a priest," she says, "who refused to pass judgment on my actions. He said it was up to me to decide if they were right or wrong. He opened a door, and I walked through the door, realizing I was on my own."

TLM: This is her liberation?

COULSON: This is her liberation. Now, her parents had not delivered her to the IHMs in order for her to be on her own. She was precious to them. She describes the day in 1962 when they drove her in the station wagon to Montecito, to the IHMs' novitiate.  How excited they were, to be delivering someone into God's hands! Well, instead they delivered her into the hands of nondirective psychology.

TLM: But to mitigate your own guilt, Dr. Coulson, psychologists don't know what they are doing when it comes to the inner depth of the human person; and one would think the Catholic Church, with 2,000 years' experience, does know what it is doing. This priest was a co-culprit. Had he nipped this in the bud-but he sounds like Rogers: "Well, it seems to me that perhaps you might perhaps do this or that."

COULSON: "What does it mean to you?" not "What does it mean to me?" Or to God.  The priest got confused about his role as a confessor. He thought it was personal, and he consulted himself and said, "I can't pass judgment on you." But that's not what confession is. It is not about the priest as a person, making a decision for the client; rather it's what God says. In fact, God has already judged on this matter. You are quite right to feel guilty about it. "Go thou and sin no more." Instead he said she should decide.

TLM: Okay. Now, why did you choose the IHM order in the first place? Or did they choose you?

COULSON: Well, they hustled us pretty good. They were very progressive to begin with. A shoestring relative of one of Rogers' Wisconsin colleagues was a member of the community. By then we were at the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute (WBSI) in La Jolla, which is a suburb of San Diego; as a Catholic, I was assigned to exploit the connection. I spoke to the California Conference of Major Superiors of Women's Religious Orders, and showed them a film of Carl Rogers doing psychotherapy.

TLM: And Rogers' reputation had already grown.

COULSON: Oh yes. Rogers had a great reputation. He was former president of the American Psychological Association; he won its first Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award. And WBSI was also the home of Abraham Maslow, the other great figure in humanistic psychology.

TLM: What do you mean by humanistic psychology?

COULSON: Well, it's also called third-floor psychology. Maslow referred to it as Psychology Three. By that he meant to oppose it to Freud, which is Psychology One, and Skinner and Watson, the behaviorism which is Psychology Two. We Catholics who got involved in it thought this third

force would take account of Catholic things. It would take account of the fact that every person is precious, that we are not just corrupted as Freud would have it, or a tabula rasa, which is available to be conditioned in whatever way the behaviorist chooses; but rather we have human potential, and it's glorious because we are the children of a loving Creator who has something marvelous in mind for every one of us.

TLM: That could be very seductive even for Catholics who could reject the other two with a simple wave of the hand. Okay, continue now with the story of the IHMs.

COULSON: As I said, the IHMs were pretty progressive, but some of the leadership was a little bit nervous about the secular psychologist from La Jolla coming in; and so I met with the whole community, some 600 nuns gathered in the Immaculate Heart High School gymnasium, in Hollywood, on an April day in 1967. We've already done the pilot study, we told them. Now we want to get everybody in the system involved in nondirective self-exploration. We call it encounter groups, but if that name doesn't please you, we'll call it something else. We'll call it the person group.

So they went along with us, and they trusted us, and that is partly my responsibility, because they thought, "These people wouldn't hurt us: the project coordinator is a Catholic." Rogers, however, was the principal investigator. He was the brains behind the project, and he was probably anti-Catholic; at the time I didn't recognize it because I probably was, too. We both had a bias against hierarchy. I was flush with Vatican II, and I thought, "I am the Church; I am as Catholic as the Pope. Didn't Pope John XXIII want us to open the windows and let in the fresh air? Here we come!" And we did, and within a year those nuns wanted out of their vows. (We overcame their traditions, we overcame their faith.)

Yes, it's really pretty simple. Conciliarism is from the devil, lock, stock and barrel.

Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII did indeed open a “window to the world,” and the devil came in with all his minions, and they have been busier than ever since Jorge Mario Bergoglio walked out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.

Instability is at the heart of conciliarism, and instability in matters of Faith, Worship, and Morals leads to massive defects in Catholic belief and practice as it human beings crave certitude and will seek it in all the wrong places if that which they believe to the bosom of the Catholic Church has done the ontologically impossible, namely, exchanged certitude for incertitude, reverence for irreverence, the sacred for the profane, and the moral for the immoral.

Writing in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X explained Modernism’s penchant for instability as follows:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)

The list of "reforms" that Pope Saint Pius X knew that the Modernists wanted to implement stands out as a prophetic warning as to the agenda that was formed by Modernist theologians in the years before the "Second" Vatican Council and became the fundamental basis for the whole ethos of conciliarism. Consider the prophetic nature of Pope Saint Pius X's list of "reforms" that the Modernists wanted to implement:

1) The passion for innovation. Innovation, which the Church has always eschewed, has become the very foundation of conciliarism. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised novelty and innovation repeatedly, doing so during his now infamous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to his conciliar curia. Since when has this been the case in the history of the Catholic Church? It is standard practice in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and "innovation" is the hallmark of the carciature of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

2) "They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live." This is a cogent summary of the belief of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, which he outlined in Principles of Catholic Theology and in his own autobiography, Milestones. Bergoglio has no regard for philosophy of any kind as he is moved solely by pure subjectivism without the window dressing of his predecessors "new theology."

3) "Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to harmonized with science and history." Thus it is, of course, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told us, both before and during his false "pontificate," that such things as Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors and even Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis, among other encyclical letters and papal pronouncements (see Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism) itself served a useful purpose at one point in history but lose their binding force over time. In other words, we must harmonize Catholicism with the events of history (the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, the institutionalization of Protestant "churches," the rise of the secular state) and not be "tied down" by a "time-centered" view of the Faith. As repetition is the mother of learning, perhaps it is good to repeat once again that this Modernist view of dogma was specifically condemned by the [First] Vatican Council. No Catholic is free to ignore these binding words and remain a Catholic in good standing:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

4) "Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head." This describes the liturgical thrust of conciliarism quite accurately. Indeed, the last sentence in this sentence has particular application to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was somewhat disposed to be "indulgent" to the symbolism of the liturgy but was nevertheless committed to "reforming" the conciliar "reform" Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio comes from a more "liberated" background than his predecessor. The modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition can have its place, according to the falsehoods he published in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, for those who are "attached" to it. Bergoglio/Francis has made sure, of course, that there is no turning back on the "reform" itself, including the reduction of the saints commemorated on conciliarism's universal calendar. Indeed, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (pp. 389-390) 

5) "They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified." The conciliarists have summarized Pope Saint Pius X's description of their Modernist view of Church governance very succinctly: Collegiality. It is no accident that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI gave away the Papal Tiara, which is on display in the crypt of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., and that Albino Luciani/John Paul I and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio each refused to be crowned. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI went so far as to remove the tiara from his coat-of-arms, which is reflective of episcopal collegiality with his own bishops and a gesture in the direction of those steeped in the heresies of Photius, the Orthodox. And Jorge Mario Bergoglio has divested what little remained of "papal dignity" in the conciliar Petrine Ministry in the past ninety months. 

6) "The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit." This is of the essence of Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965. And it is of the essence of the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's belief that the "Second" Vatican Council represented an "official reconciliation" with the principles of 1789. Just as a little reminder so that readers with short memories do not think that I am misrepresenting the thought of the man who does not believe it to be the mission of the Catholic Church to seek with urgency the conversion of Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and all others who are outside her maternal bosom: 

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)

In addition to the above-noted paragraph in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X went on to note the arrogance of the Modernists in their desire for novelty and in their contempt for scholastic theology and their efforts to view the Fathers in light of their own Modernist predilections:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war.Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 42)

This paragraph is a ringing condemnation of the work of conciliarism and of its progenitors, the so-called "new theologians" (Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Joseph Alois Ratzinger, et al.). Look at how Pope Saint Pius X zeroed in on the three things that the late Joseph Ratzinger spent nearly 400 pages trying to deconstruct and explain away in Principles of Catholic Theology: (1) The Scholastic Method of Philosophy; (2) The Authority and Tradition of the Fathers; and (3) the Magisterium of the Church  The then "Cardinal" Ratzinger had to rely upon his Hegelian view of the world to explain away dogmatic pronouncements and articles contained in the Deposit of Faith that constituted part of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium. The Syllabus of Errors? Well, right for its time perhaps, Ratzinger said throughout his seventy years of priestly apostasy, but we can see now that it was a "hasty" and "superficial" overreaction to the events of the day? 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's solution to all this?

Fulfill every Modernist precept that Pope Pius X warned us about, that’s what.

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton explained in a 1960 article in The American Ecclesistical Review that Pope Saint Pius X that reocgnized "the Modernists and their sympathizers, the anti-anti-Modernists, were actually working, in agreement with the most bitter enemies of the Catholic Church, for the destruction of the Catholic Faith."

In this conclusion to the Sacrorum antistitum, St. Pius X expressly recognizes the fact that the Modernists and their sympathizers, the anti-anti-Modernists, were actually working, in agreement with the most-bitter enemies of the Catholic Church, for the destruction of the Catholic faith. It is interesting and highly important to note exactly what St. Pius X said. He definitely did not claim that these men were working directly to destroy the Church as a society. It is quite obvious that, given the intimate connection between the Church and the faith, a connection so close and perfect that the Church itself may be defined as the congregatio fidelium, the repudiation of the Catholic faith would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Church. Yet, for the Modernists and for those who co-operated in their work, the immediate object of attack was always the faith itself. These individuals were perfectly willing that the Catholic Church should continue to exist as a religious society, as long as it did not insist upon the acceptance of that message which, all during the course of the previous centuries of its existence, it had proposed as a message supernaturally revealed by the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. They were willing and even anxious to retain their membership in the Catholic Church, as long as they were not obliged to accept on the authority of divine faith such unfashionable dogmas as, for example, the truth that there is truly no salvation outside of the Church.

What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era.

It must be understood, of course, that the Modernists and the men who aided their efforts did not expect the Catholic Church to repudiate its age-old formulas of belief. They did not want the Church to reject or to abandon the ancient creeds, or even any of those formularies in which the necessity of the faith and the necessity of the Church are so firmly and decisively stated. What they sought was a declaration on the part of the Church's magisteriumto the effect that these old formulas did not, during the first decade of the twentieth century, carry the same meaning for the believing Catholic that they had carried when these formulas had first been drawn up. Or, in other words, they sought to force or to delude the teaching authority of Christ's Church into coming out with the fatally erroneous proposition that what is accepted by divine faith in this century is objectively something different from what was believed in the Catholic Church on the authority of God revealing in previous times.

Thus the basic objective of Modernism was to reject the fact that, when he sets forth Catholic dogma, the Catholic teacher is acting precisely as an ambassador of Christ. The Modernists were men who were never quite able to grasp or to accept the truth that the teaching of the Catholic Church is, as the First Vatican Council designated the content of the Constitution Dei Films, actually "the salutary doctrine of Christ," and not merely some kind of doctrine, which has developed out of that teaching. And, in the final analysis, the position of the Modernists constituted the ultimate repudiation of the Catholic faith. If the teaching proposed by the Church as dogma is not actually and really the doctrine supernaturally revealed by God through Jesus Christ Our Lord, through the Prophets of the Old Testament who were His heralds, or through the Apostles who were His witnesses, then there could be nothing more pitifully inane than the work of the Catholic magisterium. (Sacrosanctum Antistitum: The Background of The Oath Against Modernism.)

The following passage, contained in the quotation from Monsignor Fenton's article of fifty-seven years ago, is an exact description of the conciliar "popes" and their stooges:

What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era. (Sacrosanctum Antistitum: The Background of The Oath Against Modernism.)

Behold the non-doctrinal religious body that is nothing other than a kind of humanitarian institution, vagely religious and pantheistic, a veritable tool of Judeo-Masonic global naturalism.

Pope Saint Pius X warned us about such a false church:

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon?Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.) 

The “gospel” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its social program for secular salvation is the very embodiment of such a false church, and it stands condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Let those who want to see the truth do so. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has never been, is not now nor can ever be the Catholic Church.

What part of the following papal statements about the Catholic Church's freedom from error and heresy is hard to understand or to accept?

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

​Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)   

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)   

The Catholic Church is incapable of being touched by any kind of error, no less heresy, no, not even in her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

Th Modernist revolution has used its embrace of dogmatic evolutionism to do away with the certitude of what is thought to be Catholicism, and that is what is driving Catholics out of what they think be the Catholic Church, something that the Pew Study could never quantify empirically and that even well-meaning Catholics as Eric Sammons do not seem ready to accept as Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the only the end product of Karol Josezf Wojtyla/John Paul II's "living tradition" and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity," slogans that were meant to disguise their ideas as nothing other than dogmatic evolutionism in new wineskins. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has only dispensed with the pretense.

No certitude, no reverence, no reverence, no people.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has been awash in heresy from its beginnings as it is premised upon Modernism’s condemned precept of “the evolution of dogma” that is nothing other than a denial of the very immutability of God Himself. It is thus no exaggeration to state that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is premised upon a denial of God’s very Divine Nature as He has revealed It to us exclusively through His Catholic Church.

From the denial of God’s Divine Nature flows quite logically the heresies associated with the Divine Constitution of his Holy Catholic Church by means of the “new ecclesiology,” false ecumenism, “inter-religious prayer” services and “episcopal collegiality. Similarly, the denial of God’s Divine Nature is responsible for the rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King over men and their nations in favor of the heresy of “religious liberty” that is so responsible for producing havoc all throughout the supposedly “civilized world,” starting in the new places that gave birth to it, the United States of America and the “First Republic of France.”

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is awash in abominable sacrileges, starting with the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and its other false sacramentally barren rites (“episcopal consecration,” “priestly ordination,” “confirmation,” “anointing of the sick”) and the wretched displays of wanton debauchery spawned thereby.

Ah, but our relatives, former friends and acquaintances think that we are the problem for holding fast to the truths of the true Faith that Jorge despises:

We must always remember these words of Saint Athanasius:

May God console you!...What saddens you...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there -- they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way...

You are the ones who are happy. You who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to us from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from It and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. (Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.)

"What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?"

These are words to remember.

No place, not even places where the Holy Mass was once offered by true bishops and true priests, is more important than the Faith.

We must seek out that true Faith today as we make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, recognizing, of course, that we are not one whit better than anyone else and that we have much for which to make reparation as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

Every Rosary we pray, offered up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will help to make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the state of the Church Militant on earth and for that of the world-at-large, and those of the whole world, including the conciliarists who blaspheme God regularly by means of lies such as the "hermeneutic of continuity” and the alleged need to “accompany” sinners who have no intention of repenting their sins or amending their lives of perdition.

The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Church Militant will rise again from her mystical death and burial.

Keep praying. Keep sacrificing. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.

August Queen of Heaven, sovereign mistress of the angels, thou who from the beginning hast received from God the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan: we humbly implore thee to send thy holy legions, so that under thy command and by thy power they may drive the devils away, everywhere fight them subduing their boldness, and thrust them down into the abyss.

Who is like unto God?

O good and tender Mother, thou willst always be our love and our hope.

O divine Mother send thy holy angels to defend me and to drive from away from me the cruel enemy.

Holy Angels and Archangels, defend us and keep us.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary right now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Matthew the Apostle, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, pray for us.